Virginia Libertarian

Welcome to News Virginian: Serving the Waynesboro, VA region | Housing rule tosses curve

Under federal guidelines, Litke should be paying a rent no higher than $700 a month - $150 less than what she’s currently being charged. If she accepts the voucher - and she can’t afford to pay any rent these days without it - she’s legally required to keep her rent under $700.

With that being the case, her landlord, John Rorrer, had to ask her to leave.

“She’s been a model tenant,” Rorrer said Thursday. “I don’t have anything to say against her. She keeps the house immaculate; she was always on time with the rent. … I wish she could stay forever.”

Litke had wished for the same thing, once dreaming of offering to buy the house in a few years.

But, Rorrer said, right now the mortgage is his to pay, and both interest rates and property tax assessments are rising. He couldn’t take the financial hit.

Litke begged him to let her pay the extra $150 herself. But that’s a clear no-no under government rules.

“That’s considered fraud by the government,” said Rorrer. “… I’m not any happier about her going than she is, trust me.”

He added he’d always had positive experiences with vouchers and the local Redevelopment and Housing Authority, which administers the program. But he was surprised when they wouldn’t let Litke pay such a small amount out-of-pocket.

“The system has failed her, as it has failed many people in the past,” he said.

And this is the problem with government funded anything.  There are rules, not exceptions.  Even if there were a path for this woman to file for an exception, we all know how long that would take, years.  It would have been much better if she had relied upon private charities, and people in the community to come to her aid rather than the government.  The government should really not be taking any part in providing safety nets for people.  Now, there are those of you out there who will think that’s callouse, what about people who come upon hard times?  I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be any safety nets, I’m saying that they shouldn’t be funded by the government.  Government is to big, to inefficient, and to disconnected from the communities where help is needed to be of benefit.  We would all be better off if government were to get out of this practice and reduce its spending, thus leaving us all more money in our pockets.  People would have more of their own money, and would be able to give more to charity instead of having the money taken from them at gunpoint, and redistributed how government sees fit.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 1st, 2006 at 10:34 am and is filed under Local. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.